NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman@NASAAdmin·3hI will just say we are leaning forward with transparency, sharing the blemishes and the successes, because for a program as costly and important to national security as Artemis, the public is entitled to the facts.- The confidence test related to the seals we repaired and replaced after WDR-1 provided a great deal of data, and we observed materially lower leak rates compared to prior observations during WDR-1. I would not say something broke that caused the premature end to the test, as much as we observed enough and reached a point where waiting out additional troubleshooting was unnecessary.- The test was performed Thursday afternoon the 12th. Crew-12 launched early the morning of the 13th. The Artemis II test data review took place the afternoon of the 13th, and we released the blog update that evening. I believe we acted in a timely manner, considering we did not want to create needless confusion alongside a crewed launch to the space station. - Considering the issues observed during the lead-up to Artemis I, and the long duration between missions, we should not be surprised there are challenges entering the Artemis II campaign. That does not excuse the situation, but we understand it. I am impressed with the NASA team and our contractors working diligently through the campaign. They are professionals, and they know the dream they are trying to enable. I will say near-conclusively for Artemis III, we will cryoproof the vehicle before it gets to the pad, and the propellant loading interfaces we are troubleshooting will be redesigned. - As I have stated many times, the President ensured Artemis would endure through dozens of missions, enabling repeatable and affordable operations in the lunar environment as we construct and operate a Moon base. The architecture will continue to evolve as we learn and as industry capabilities mature. Simply said, where we begin is not where we will end.There is still a great deal of work ahead to prepare for this historic mission. We will not launch unless we are ready and the safety of our astronauts will remain the highest priority. We will keep everyone informed as NASA prepares to return to the Moon.
As part of robustly testing the vehicle prior to flight, NASA engineers are reviewing data after a confidence test Feb. 12, in which operators partially filled the SLS (Space Launch System) core stage liquid hydrogen tank to assess newly replaced seals in an area used to fill the rocket with propellant.During the test, teams encountered an issue with ground support equipment that reduced the flow of liquid hydrogen into the rocket. Teams were able to gain confidence in several key objectives of the test, and data was obtained at the core stage interfaces, taken at the same time in the test where they encountered a leak during the previous wet dress rehearsal. Engineers will purge the line over the weekend to ensure proper environmental conditions and inspect the ground support equipment before replacing a filter suspected to be the cause of the reduced flow.Engineers will examine findings before setting a timeline for the next test, a second wet dress rehearsal this month. March remains the earliest potential launch window for Artemis II.
We will return in the years ahead, we will build a Moon base, and undertake what should be continuous missions to and from the lunar environment. Where we begin with this architecture and flight rate is not where it will end.
Please expect a more extensive briefing later this week as we outline the path forward, not just for Artemis II, but for subsequent missions, to ensure NASA meets the President’s vision to return to the Moon and, this time, to stay.
why they can't fix it at the pad.
Quote from: haywoodfloyd on 02/21/2026 06:19 pm why they can't fix it at the pad.no access
Quote from: Jim on 02/21/2026 06:43 pmQuote from: haywoodfloyd on 02/21/2026 06:19 pm why they can't fix it at the pad.no accessPlease elaborate.Exactly where on the vehicle it access required?A diagram would be helpful.
Quote from: haywoodfloyd on 02/21/2026 07:06 pmQuote from: Jim on 02/21/2026 06:43 pmQuote from: haywoodfloyd on 02/21/2026 06:19 pm why they can't fix it at the pad.no accessPlease elaborate.Exactly where on the vehicle it access required?A diagram would be helpful.See here, with the helium COPVs in red. This is encapsulated in the LVSA (launch vehicle stage adapter).
See here, with the helium COPVs in red.
Quote from: sstli2 on 02/21/2026 07:53 pmSee here, with the helium COPVs in red.It's probably useful to point out that the intertank shown in the picture is sitting upside-down to how it's mounted on the DCSS/ICPS.Looks like there's a separate LVSA umbilical, in addition to the separate LH2 and LOX QDs. I have no clue how that umbilical routes helium to the COPVs on the intertank. Is there some kind of QD between the LVSA's inner wall and the intertank, or is the helium coming through the LOX QD?
The circled hose is a simple purge gas hose. For normal processing, it supplies conditioned air, for launch and tanking activities it supplies gaseous nitrogen to create an inert atmosphere inside the LVSA volume.
Why didn't they run the purge gas system along the lower QD as well?
Why can't they use a cherry picker like SpaceX does to access the helium bottles or attach a platform to the MLP to acess that level?
This is a design flaw with the ML. Why make the ML so complex and expensive when it can even service such a minor basic hose? Really hoping for ML2 they fix this issue so they dont need to roll back for these miniscule repair jobs. What a waste of time. Just watch the seals fail when they roll back to the pad for the 2nd time
There's also solace, admittedly bittersweet, from realizing that after Artemis II flies they'll have many months before the Artemis III launch campaign, with its final use of an ICPS. Those months will be time enough to figure out if there are process modifications they can make to reduce the likelihood of the problem recurring on that mission..
